Campaigns of the past

What was campaigning like in the past? Senior writer Lara Pickford-Gordon spoke to Ferdie Ferreira, political commentator and founding member of the People’s National Movement (PNM), as well as a foundation member of the Organisation for National Reconstruction (ONR); and John Humphrey, former government minister whose political career spans the United National Congress (UNC), the National Alliance for Reconstruction (NAR) and the United Labour Front (ULF).

Ferdie Ferreira

In an interview on April 8, Ferdie Ferreira, 92 years, recalled that although Trinidad and Tobago was still under colonial rule in 1946, universal adult suffrage allowed persons aged 21 and older to vote.

Publicity for the election took the form of pamphlets about voter registration, the county councils, the constitution, candidate nomination and qualifications, and a detailed description of the voting process.

There were 154 names on nomination day, with the largest number contesting in Naparima. At that time, the total electorate was 189,351. Of this, 69,679 ballots were cast—a voter turnout of 36.8 per cent. A total of 113,056 votes were recorded with 10,402 (9.2 per cent) rejected (Source: Report on the County Councils General Election 1946, National Archives of Trinidad and Tobago).

Among the parties contesting were the Trinidad Labour Party, United Front, Butler Party, Trade Union Congress and Socialist Party, Progressive Democrat Party, and several independents.

Though there were political parties, Ferreira said it was individuals who captured public attention—figures like Tubal ‘Uriah’ Buzz Butler, Captain Arthur Cipriani, Albert Gomes, Victor Bryan, Roy Joseph, and Badase Maharaj. He said they campaigned “on the programmes, or what we call manifestos today, were based on the following: increased old age pension, poor relief, no taxes on ‘kakapool’ (cheap rum), cigarettes, [putting a] standpipe in village.”

Candidates also pledged to pave dirt roads, improve medical facilities, and build health centres and hospitals.

While today’s political statements can be vitriolic, it was also quite fierce in the past. Ferreira said before the recourse to a pre-action protocol letter, there were professional canvassers.

“These professional canvassers agenda was characterised by mauvaise langue, mudslinging, muck raking, character assassination,” Ferreira said. He illustrated with examples on how one canvasser told a crowd, “How can you support a candidate like that?…He fadda was the village foul thief, and he mudda was charged for importuning men for immoral purposes”. Another ‘mic man’ as they were called said: “Vote Netto and have your bottom bitten by mosquitoes”. Salacious language was also used.

According to Ferreira, the election battle knew no limits in their efforts to convince the electorate of their honesty, integrity, and good intentions. The displeased electorate could respond with stone pelting, rotten eggs or “throw pee on you”. “Boy, you had to come good or face the consequences, not only of your opponent but an angry dispossessed electorate now enjoying the right to select their own representatives. There was little or no party protection,” he recalled.

At that time, canvassers switched allegiances and worked for whoever paid more. There were no televisions, so the public meetings provided direct contact. Ferreira said the canvassers’ impact was on the semi-literate. “The era was known as the era of standpipe politics”, he said.

By 1950, a new constitution— the Trinidad and Tobago Order in Council— established an Executive Council chaired by the Governor. This Council included ex-officio members: the Colonial Secretary, Attorney General, Financial Secretary, one nominated member and five elected representatives.

Ferreira said there was no Cabinet but the first ministers were: Albert Gomes— Minister of Labour, Industry and Commerce (Chief Minister); Victor Bryan— Minister of Agriculture and Lands and Surveys (Labour Party); Roy Joseph—Minister of Education and Social Services; Norman Tang—Minister of Health (Independent) and Ajodah Singh—Minister of Works (Independent).

Ferreira said the advent of the People’s National Movement (PNM) in 1956 marked a change.  “…so, while the main attraction was Dr [Eric] Williams, the electorate supported the new dispensation based on promises in the people’s charter”.

This brought about the decline of professional canvassers. “It was an entirely new era. The party members were now prepared to work free not only to assist the candidates to canvass, but to finance the party. The Constitution provided for the members to finance it”, he said.

He observed that the emphasis on party loyalty, responsibility and self-financing has since given way to external financing from the private sector.

John Humphrey

Manifestos mattered

In a telephone interview on April 10, John Humphrey said in the past, parties produced and campaigned on manifestos, but “very few governments that won elections actually implemented what was promised.”

He lamented that if the National Alliance for Reconstruction had implemented its manifesto, the country would be different today. Humphrey noted that campaigning at the constituency level was distinct from national campaigning. When he ran for St Augustine, a marginalised area at the time, he visited homes with well-known locals.

“It didn’t matter to me if you were a supporter or not, I just wanted to impress people, that I was there to serve them, in fact I did and I won the constituency on four occasions”, Humphrey said.

Cottage meetings took place in the evenings, often attended by party colleagues who also addressed residents. “So, they would see more of the candidates, and you develop more confidence in the team. But the manifesto pledges were the important thing”.

National campaigns were often broadcast live and attended by hundreds of supporters. Asked his views on whether party allegiance superseded loyalty to country, Humphrey said this was partly true. He linked this to the British coloniser’s use of divide and rule tactic to maintain control.

“The British didn’t have enough military to control the amount of countries that they colonised, so they did it psychologically by dividing the people themselves and then they exploited the colonies.”

He added, “but in independence, you don’t want to be an exploited nation…we inherited these divisions, and they were usually racial”.